Catholic Analysis: Mariology is Biblical

Vivificat! - A Catholic Blog of Commentary and Opinion ^ | 27 December 2005 | Teófilo

[Teófilo]

Folks, my blogger colleague, Oswald Sobrino of Catholic Analysis, has written a good essay regarding "Mariology," that is, the theological study and liturgical recognition of the place of Mary, the Mother of the Lord, the Theotokos, in the economy of salvation. It is entitled Mariology is Biblical. Here's an extract:

One of the great stumbling blocks for our Protestant brethren who are on the verge of crossing the Tiber, i.e., entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, is the great attention paid to the Mother of Jesus by Catholics. This hesitation is understandable: Protestantism is a reaction against Catholicism, and one of the reactions has been, historically, to exile the Mother of Jesus from salvation history. In recent times, some Protestants have sought to correct this strange exile of the Mother of God by looking back to the writings of the Church Fathers and to the early ecumenical councils, especially the fifth century Council of Ephesus. Yet, even Catholics can have a hard time responding to the insistent Protestant plea that to venerate Mary is to somehow detract from the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).

...

The crux of the matter is that Mary's extraordinary mediation as Mother of Jesus derives from and is included in the unique mediatorship of Christ himself. What we ask our Protestant brethren to consider prayerfully, and, yes, quite biblically, is that the mediatorship of Christ is inclusive and admits of and even insists upon our participation. If we participate, as Paul did, then certainly the one whom the ecumenical Council of Ephesus termed the "Mother of God" or "God-bearer" in 431 A.D. does also. Interestingly, today, even some conservative evangelical Protestant scholars openly refer to Mary as "Mother of God" based on the significance they ascribe to the Council of Ephesus. They are discovering the riches of the faith preserved for them through the centuries preceding the Reformation by none other than the Catholic Church.

- I urge all of you to read the entire piece at Catholic Analysis.

[netmilsmom]

>>Name calling brings no more honour to our heavenly Mother than it would to your earthly mother.<<

Exactly! Which is why I said...
"You do yourself no favors by looking this stupid."

Note that I never said this poster IS stupid, I stated that the statement made him/her LOOK stupid.

I draw the line at calling names but will point out an action that makes a person seem that way.

Why don't you speak to the poster who said the statement about idolotry? He/she is very insulting. How about a lesson for him/her?

[Mr. Lucky]

I took his post #6 as an apology to Teofilo (and it appears Teofilo accepted it as such).

[A.A. Cunningham]

Your ignorance disappoints the Creator.

[A.A. Cunningham]

You're still ignorant of Scripture.

[Jaded]

Thanks for the article.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Pointing out the obvious isn't name calling, regardless of the opinion of the effeminate.

"Be not over just: and be not more wise than is necessary, lest thou become stupid." Ecclesiastes 7:17

[Gamecock]

Actually, what keeps me from crossing the Tiber is not Mariology. It is the whole RC view of Grace.

Mary is a secondary issue. (Real, but secondary)

[Rippin]

I have a favorite way of framing this issue that might be useful in keeping this discussion from degenerating to epithets. Let me know what you think.

There are three things Kerygma, Dogma, and Devotion

Mary is almost zero in the kerygma, she is small but significant in the dogma, and she is large in devotion.

I think if Roman Catholics would adopt a scheme like this and stick to it and purge prayers and statements that confused it, they would win over many Protestants. The problem is that for the Protestant, they themselves have failed to keep all this straight. Thus Protestants are always uttering conflicting platitudes like "Unity in the essentials freedom in the non-essentials." And then splitting over nothing.

For the Roman Catholic part, it should not be a requirement to believe much about Mary except those things which are necessary to preserve a proper understanding of the incarnation (Ever Virgin, Theotokos). It should be a matter of pious opinion/devotion. You could win over a lot if you could adopt that.

The subtlety with which Mary has bee quietly inserted through the scriptures by name in the NT and by foreshadowing in the old is wonderful and not forced at all, seems almost as if God puts it there for those with ears to hear and doesn't want her forced on anyone.

[Frank Sheed]

Dave Armstrong on Grace.

Other sources of reference can be found here. Just type in "grace".

Peace be upon you!

Frank

[Mr. Lucky]

Effeminate?

My reply, I guess, is found at Ecclesiastes 7:18

Be not overmuch wicked; and be not foolish.

[Buggman]

Yeah, I should probably write another reply to that other thread sometime soon--somehow it just didn't seem an appropriate debate to have on Christmas weekend.

Okay then, before I deal with the specifics of the article, let's have a little quiz: What is wrong with the following picture?

Answer:

I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make to yourselves any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them. For I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me, and showing mercy to thousands of those that love Me and keep My commandments.
--Exodus 20:2-6

Now, in light of the above commandment and the very regular Catholic practice of bowing down to graven images the Biblical Christian is altogether justified and right to break fellowship with the Roman Catholic institution. The Catholic defense that "We're not really worshipping the statue or the saint, but the God behind the saint" is irrelevant. When Israel sinned by making the golden calf, it didn't matter that they were still worshipping the God who had led them out of Egypt (in Exo. 32:4-55, after making the calf, Aaron says, "These are your gods (Heb. Eloheyk, lit. 'Here is your God,' as the term "God" is nearly a plural Hebrew word when speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt . . . Tomorrow is a feast to YHVH," thus proving that the idolatry was meant to honor God. God still wasn't very pleased with Israel, was He?

God did not spend two millennia beating the idea that bowing to graven images is okay out of Israel just to reinstitute the pagan practice after the coming of the Messiah.

Now, to deal with the specifics of the article:

. . . one of the reactions has been, historically, to exile the Mother of Jesus from salvation history.

On the contrary, we are quite cognizant of Miryam's (Mary's) place in salvation history: She was blessed above all women and given the honor of giving birth to the Messiah, the Incarnation of God Himself.

However, that does not make her Co-Redemtrix, for "Our Redeemer, YHVH-Tzva'ot (the LORD of Hosts) is His name, the Holy One of Israel. . . For my sake, for My sake I will do it; for why should My name be defiled? And I will not give My glory to another" (Isa. 47:4, 48:11).

Nor does this make her a mediator between God (whose person includes the Messiah) and Man, "For God is one, and there is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Messiah Yeshua . . ." (I Ti. 2:5).

Nor does it make her sinless (the Immaculate Conception), for Miryam herself called God her Savior (Luke 1:47), and "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

Miryam was the humblest of God's servants, and it would be a stab to her heart to know half of what Catholics attribute to her or call upon her to do for them.

It is telling that in the author's response to the plain meaning of 1 Ti. 2:5 that he does not rely upon Scripture to build his case, nor even on specific citations from the earliest Church fathers, but on a pair of encyclicals written in the last quarter-century:

In other words, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ does not extinguish the intercessory communion of human beings before God.

There is a vast difference between the Messiah's mediatorship and intercessory prayer. The word "mediator" in 1 Timothy is mesites, which means, to quote Thayer's Lexicon, "one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant." When I pray for a friend, I do not do so as a go-between as if I had the position to turn away God's anger for their sins; rather, I can at best pray that God will continue to pursue them so that they might repent of their sins and find forgiveness in the Messiah Yeshua, Christ Jesus.

This is a far cry from what the Catholic seeks in Mary (P-Marlowe will excuse me, I trust, for ripping off some of his research):

Consider the following book, Novena Prayers in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help, with the Catholic Imprimatur (and nihil obstat) on it which guarantees that there is nothing heretical in it.

We have no greater help,
no greater hope than you,
O Most Pure Virgin; help us, then,
for we hope in you, we glory in you,
we are your servants.
Do not disappoint us.
(Novena Prayers in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help (Uniontown, Pa.: Sisters of St. Basil, 1968), p. 16)

In the same devotional book Mary’s devotees pray:

Come to my aid, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing: not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; not even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased.
(Ibid., p. 19)

Numerous examples of this kind of Mary worship can be found in Alphonsus de Liguori’s famous book, The Glories of Mary ( a.d. 1750), which is published in over 800 editions! A few examples will suffice:

Shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.”

“Many things,” says Nicephorus, “are asked from God, and are not granted: they are asked from Mary, and are obtained.”

At the commands of Mary all obey—even God” [!!!]
(Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, ed. Eugene Grimm (Brooklyn: Redemptionist Fathers, 1931), pp. 169, 180, 137)

And from this Catholic website:

St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, says this: "When we pray to the Mother of God we are heard more quickly than when we call directly on the name of Jesus --- for her Son is not only our Lord but our Judge. But when we call on the name of His Mother, though our own merits will not insure an answer, yet her merits intercede for us and we are answered." . . .

St. John Damascene used to say: "As long as I keep alive my hope in thee, O Mother of God, I shall be safe. I will fight and overcome enemies with this one shield --- thy protection and thy all-powerful help." . . .

Our Blessed Lady revealed to St. Bridget that the devil flies from even the most abandoned sinners --- from those farthest from God and fully possessed by the devil, if only they invoke her most powerful name with a true purpose of amendment. But our Blessed Lady added at the same time that, if such persons do not amend and wash away their sins in sorrow, the devils return and begin again to possess them.

Clearly, the devotion expressed by many Catholics towards Mary goes well beyond the devotion that any human being other than the Messiah should receive--and even Yeshua taught us to pray, not to Himself, but to His Father in His Name (cf. The Lord's Prayer). Indeed, He Himself said, "At that day you will ask in My name; and I do not say to you that I will pray to the Father for you, for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came out from God" John 16:26-27). He is not here contradicting His earlier statement that He would pray for His disciples (14:16), but making the point that they didn't just have Him as a go-between--they have and we have direct access to God the Father's throne in Yeshua's Name, and He loves us dearly because we have put our faith in Yeshua, who paid the full price for our sins.

If we participate, as Paul did, then certainly the one whom the ecumenical Council of Ephesus termed the "Mother of God" or "God-bearer" in 431 A.D. does also.

"God-bearer" is possibly an appropriate title (depending on the connotation one derives from it); "Mother of God" is certainly not. By calling Mary the "Mother of God" we put God under her authority. Indeed, many Catholics follow the logic of the title exactly to its full conclusion, saying that they go to Mary because no son would reject the request of his mother and surely Christ is not exception! But on the contrary, God is not Mary's son, He is her Father. She gave birth to His physical incarnation (i.e., the flesh, bone, and blood, not the mind or Spirit), but, to paraphrase Yochanan the Immerser, aka John the Baptist, He who came after her is before her, for He preceded her.

Of course, the author of this article oversimplifies: There is far more than just the issue of Mariology separating Protestants and Catholics. Mary happens to be one of the most emotional issues, but the core issue is the RCC's attempt to both add to and take away from the Word of God by it's traditions. Yeshua wasn't pleased when the Pharisees did that (Mark 7); what makes you think He's any more pleased by the annuling of God's Word by the Magisterium?

[Mr. Lucky]

Assume for a moment that some Catholics become extreme in their veneration of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Does that error refute that the name of Mary is blessed any more than, say, the extremism of some Protestants refutes that Jesus is holy?

[Frank Sheed]

--But on the contrary, God is not Mary's son, He is her Father. She gave birth to His physical incarnation (i.e., the flesh, bone, and blood, not the mind or Spirit), but, to paraphrase Yochanan the Immerser, aka John the Baptist, He who came after her is before her, for He preceded her.--

Actually, God is her Father, created her, and kept her alive each moment of her existence by His Divine Will. However, your comment about "His physical" incarnation makes you a heretic. You would make the Mother of God the Son an incubator. Jesus Christ was God, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. He was Son of God and Son of Man. He was a Divine Person with Two Natures making Him God-Man.

The Mystery of the Incarnation blows your mind doesn't it? It blows my mind too but that is straight out of John (no, not the Baptizer; the one we celebrate today, the Evangelist) who wrote about the Word. Check him out sometime. He uses the issue of Divine and human often in his Gospel on the Word.

Oh yeah, Luke says something about Him being obedient unto them (Mary and Joseph). Guess He was "under their authority."

Frank

[NYer]

Thank you for posting the lengthy analysis on 'Mariology' and its implications on Catholic and Protestant relations. To clarify the role of Mary as 'mediatrix', please scroll back up to my post #19. That provides insight into how Mary draws people to her Son.

As to the notion that graven images are forbidden, there are passages in the Bible in which God commands people to make statues/images for religious use:

Exodus 25:18-19 - You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends.

Pictures and statues are only idols when you bow down to them, to the material, seeing it as divine or living in any way, or having any power in any way; it is idolatry if you honor or worship/adore the STATUE itself.

All devotions to Mary and the saints ultimately glorify their Creator, who made them what they are.  Could we possibly praise the Mona Lisa without praising Leonardo DaVinci?  That masterpiece certainly did not paint itself!  Even so, Mary is God's great masterpiece, and all praise given to her is praise of Her Maker.

[Buggman]

However, your comment about "His physical" incarnation makes you a heretic.

Woot! Hey guys, he called me a heretic! I'm back in the game! (And here I thought I was losing my touch.)

Seriously, think about this before you start throwing around such nonsense labels. Yes, Yeshua the Messiah was fully God. He was also fully Man. However, there's no way you can seriously claim that Mary, a mortal, time-bound creature somehow gave birth to the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of the Immortal, Eternal, Creator God--the first two, yes, but not the last two. Thus, even using your terminology, we can say plainly that Mary was the mother of Yeshua's Man-nature, but not of His God-nature.

You either have to draw the distinction, or you have to claim that Mary is not only a goddess, but that she is greater than God.

The Mystery of the Incarnation blows your mind doesn't it?

As it does anyone who actually tries to think about it, yes.

He uses the issue of Divine and human often in his Gospel on the Word.

And this has what to do with the conversation at hand?

Oh yeah, Luke says something about Him being obedient unto them (Mary and Joseph). Guess He was "under their authority."

As a child growing up, yes. Having taken the form of Man so that He could keep the whole Torah in both letter and spirit, He had to operate as a son to human parents. He had "emptied Himself, and took upon Himself the form of a servant" (Php. 2:7). He was the servant of all, even washing His disciples' feet--but no one would claim that Kefa (Peter) orders Yeshua around, would they?

As the Resurrected Lord, no:

"He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and has given Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly ones, and of earthly ones, and of ones under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Yeshua HaMashiach is Lord (i.e., the LORD, YHVH), to the glory of God the Father." (vv. 8-11)

David was the Messiah's father (a few generations removed). In Jewish thought, no son was greater than his father, and yet, "How then does David by the Spirit call him Lord, saying, "the LORD (YHVH) said to my Lord, Sit on My right until I make Your enemies Your footstool for Your feet?" If David then calls Him Lord, how is He his son?" (Mat. 22:43-45)

In like manner, Miryam does not call Yeshua her son, but her Lord, and it is she who hastens to do His will, not vice-versa. As soon as you so much as hint otherwise, it is you who is the heretic, not I.

[Pyro7480]

In like manner, Miryam does not call Yeshua her son, but her Lord, and it is she who hastens to do His will, not vice-versa.

Even Scripture isn't backing you up with this statement.

And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
-Luke 2: 46-48

[netmilsmom]

Wow! I never realized that I was bowing down to a statue!
Oh my goodness well I better just move on to another religion!

NOT!

I guess you never quite realized that those people are not worshipping that statue, just saying continually, "Holy Mother, Pray for us."

Until you can walk around in a Catholic mind, it might just be a good idea to not state that you know what those people are doing.
And while you grab examples of devotions to Mary, you need to understand that none of those or any other private revelation is required to be believed by any Catholic.

By grabbing something on one end of the scale is like saying all Evangelicals are Jim Bakker.
I think that oily statues in my neighborhood, moisture stains on a bridge or Marian grilled cheese are ideas of reference and pretty loonie. And I am a Catholic too, a pretty orthodox one.

Right down to devotion to Mary. Honestly, there is nothing you can say that will change my mind.

[netmilsmom]

LOLOLOL!


Hey, you're a heretic! Buggman says so.
Those nasty Bible quotes can get in the way of truth sometimes.

[LiteKeeper]

Mariology, maybe, but not mariolatry!

[Frank Sheed]

Seriously, think about this before you start throwing around such nonsense labels. Yes, Yeshua the Messiah was fully God. He was also fully Man. However, there's no way you can seriously claim that Mary, a mortal, time-bound creature somehow gave birth to the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of the Immortal, Eternal, Creator God--the first two, yes, but not the last two. Thus, even using your terminology, we can say plainly that Mary was the mother of Yeshua's Man-nature, but not of His God-nature.

My source. Check Hypostatic Union; Nestorian is the heresy, by the way.

He uses the issue of Divine and human often in his Gospel on the Word.
And this has what to do with the conversation at hand?

Much of what we know of the Trinity was derived from John's Gospel by Christ Himself in His own words. He recognizes in Himself His Divinity and His human Natures. This is played out in constant explanations.

In like manner, Miryam does not call Yeshua her son, but her Lord, and it is she who hastens to do His will, not vice-versa. As soon as you so much as hint otherwise, it is you who is the heretic, not I.

Sorry, friend, I missed the part where Jesus asked all those present to "take this down." Mary has few words in Scripture. How do you know what she called Him during His days on earth? And, since Scripture seems to be your sole Authority, could you indicate where the Canon is listed in the Bible indicating the precise books to be included?

Thanks!

Frank